California VC23224 (a)

[MorganR]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I was driving with some friends when we came across a DUI checkpoint. I was driving my friend's (who was in the vehicle) car. The officer asked for my licence and instead of asking if I had anything to drink that day, asked if there was any alcohol in the car. I was thrown for a loop so I said "No, not that I know of." He asked so is there alcohol or not and I changed my answer to "No." He then told me to pull to the side. Another officer asked if there was alcohol in the car and I said "No" again. He then told me and my friends to get out of the car and pop the trunk for them to search it. They ended up finding a half full bottle of Vodka in the trunk. I said that it wasn't my car and I didn't know it was in there. My friend took full responsibility for it and said she forgot it was in there. He then gave me a misdemeanor for transporting alcohol and being under 21 and her for possession. We were given the same court date and time. Is there a way I can fight this with not knowing it was in the trunk? Also, aren't the police not allowed to search your car?

Any help would be great

 

[CdwJava]

I find the search of the trunk to be highly suspect. However, it is possible the officer will argue that you gave your consent to search the trunk.

Was there any other issues? Did you have a valid license? Had any of you been drinking (i.e. is it remotely possible they smelled alcohol)? Did the owner of the car give consent for the search?

You might consider an attorney if you really want to beat this ... it'll be more expensive than the penalties, but you might be able to get the evidence suppressed.

 

[MorganR]

I find the search of the trunk to be highly suspect. However, it is possible the officer will argue that you gave your consent to search the trunk.

Was there any other issues? Did you have a valid license? Had any of you been drinking (i.e. is it remotely possible they smelled alcohol)? Did the owner of the car give consent for the search?

You might consider an attorney if you really want to beat this ... it'll be more expensive than the penalties, but you might be able to get the evidence suppressed.

I'm not sure if I gave consent. The officer said "Alright, open it up" and told us to get out of the car. They never asked and I just did what they said, not wanting to be non-compliant. I have a valid license, the car didn't smell of alcohol and no one had been drinking.

 

[BigMouthWino]

I'm not sure if I gave consent. The officer said "Alright, open it up" and told us to get out of the car. They never asked and I just did what they said, not wanting to be non-compliant. I have a valid license, the car didn't smell of alcohol and no one had been drinking.

If you opened the trunk for him then you definitely consented. You are allowed to say no to a police officer. Something they don't teach you in school.

 

[CdwJava]

But, I have seen cases lost when someone was ordered to do something that requires consent. The consent must be freely given to be valid. That does not mean that the officer must explain that the person does not HAVE to open up the trunk, only that the consent be free. I'd argue that consent was not given in this situation and that the OP felt he had to comply with the order. It might work, it might not. I wouldn't have done it, and I don't think the officer should have made the command.

 

[BigMouthWino]

But, I have seen cases lost when someone was ordered to do something that requires consent. The consent must be freely given to be valid. That does not mean that the officer must explain that the person does not HAVE to open up the trunk, only that the consent be free. I'd argue that consent was not given in this situation and that the OP felt he had to comply with the order. It might work, it might not. I wouldn't have done it, and I don't think the officer should have made the command.

Crooked cops pull this type of move every day of the week and it is the rare honest judge who sees through it. Especially if it results in evidence of wrongdoing.

 

[CdwJava]

Crooked cops pull this type of move every day of the week and it is the rare honest judge who sees through it. Especially if it results in evidence of wrongdoing.

They do? And, your source for this happening "every day" would be ... what?

I have seen similar cases lost due to lack of consent, so it does happen.

 

[BigMouthWino]

so it does happen.

Of course it does. My point exactly. Crooked cops are a pain in the rear.

 

[CdwJava]

Of course it does. My point exactly. Crooked cops are a pain in the rear.

Good thing they are so very rare.

 

[BigMouthWino]

Good thing they are so very rare.

On the contrary it is the rule rather than the exception. The only thing difficult to determine is whether it is due to their lack of education or simple malice.

 

[CdwJava]

On the contrary it is the rule rather than the exception. The only thing difficult to determine is whether it is due to their lack of education or simple malice.

Really? Okay ... I'll wait for your objective evidence of such an absurd claim.

And I doubt it is at the bottom of the bottle.

 

[HighwayMan]

Really? Okay ... I'll wait for your objective evidence of such an absurd claim.

In addition to the equally absurd claim that most judges are dishonest.